I highly recommend James Fallows' article.

I've learned several times that no gun shots have been fired :)

This is a very important point you've hit upon, Kevin. Needs more publicity. Frankly, all the freedom-of-media gains made by the Internet are being steadily rolled back.

Imperial power conquers and occupies helpless country on false pretexts and kills those who oppose it.

Other news at ll.

Buford is spot-on. There's an article in this month's Vanity Fair by William Langewiesche (Bejing's Olympic Makeover)(sorry no linkee, the VF site caused my browser to crash) where he describes meeting with reporters of the China Daily, China's state-owned English-language newspaper, and comparing notes with them on the editorial liberties available at Vanity Fair vs. China Daily. He notes that they seemed to show no envy for freedom of the press and to believe genuinely in the need for censorship, which they impose upon themselves.

In other words, China's press is a lot like our own.

We don't see what's going in Iraq just as the Chinese don't see what's going on in Tibet. And it's because our press has decided to spare us from seeing it.

But-but-but... Power is such a turn-on. Stop being a kill-joy, Kevin.

You mean we have to get upset about censorship now?

I saw the pics of the protest and the violence, and tried to get upset about it, but... guys in uniforms are hot!!!

Speaking of which, I wonder if any of them has time to take a lady out on a date...

Sorry, but in the first post above, I should have mentioned that I'm referring to Fallows' article in the most recent issue of The Atlantic.

Mutant Palm is translating Chinese internet chatter about the violence, suggesting that information is getting through. In an age of txt messages, IM and email, information isn't as tightly controlled as you might think.

http://tenementpalm.blogspot.com/

The whole last 7 years of news in America have been like a giant chick-porn vid to me...

Every time George W. Bush stutters and says "Duh... duh... duh..." I just wish he would say it some more 'cuz it's so hawwwt! Who gives a durn about freedom...

once a piece of video gets out, it's on your favorite video site where it can remain.

Here's one: (with a video with today's date on it)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tibet&search_type=

*

mhr - though I'm sure you are aware of this, your conclusion undermines your premise.

In other words, China's press is a lot like our own.

Yeah, like in the runup to the Iraq war.

In other words, China's press is a lot like our own.

That's a bit of a hyperbole.

B - it would seem that way, if one were to disregard the numerous instances of press self-censorship over the past 6 years. If you choose to not disregard them, as I do, I fail to see how it makes that much difference whether the press prints only what they're told they can print or if they print only what they know those in power will find acceptable. Six of one, half dozen of the other...

What about censorship of the actions taken by American Special Forces? Like in Colombia, maybe? You need to cover the brewing war between Colombia and Ecuador and Venezuela, Kevin, where the U.S. is funding right-wing narcoterrorists. Click here or here for details.

Let me make a wild prediction here - You wait. In five, maybe ten years, a nuke is gonna go off in an American city and everyone will blame Islamists, but it will be because of narcoterrorists from FARC or some other right-wing group in Colombia. Why? Well, for one thing, if anyone has the money to buy a nuke, they do, from smuggling pot and cocaine. Second, the parallels in South America to our funding of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan are very close. No one in America paid any attention in the 1980s, when we were paying the most bloodthirsty and vicious men in the world to do our bidding for us, killing Communists. Now, we are doing the same thing in Colombia, clandestinely funding vicious killers, because of our obsession over the moderately Socialist Hugo Chavez. Then everyone will act all surprised and ask why they hate us and some dishonest politican will say it is because "they hate our freedom" and history will repeat itself.

There will be blowback - count on it!

From the Department of Prophetic Bar Names:

"John PlaGreco, who owns Fubar, located in the building that was crushed, told The A.P. that be believed one of his employees was in the rubble.

“Our bar is done,” he said. “The crane crashed the whole building. If I wasn’t watching a Yankees game, I would’ve come to work early and gotten killed.”

There are lots of separatist movements. Which get their own state? Tibet seems big enough and ethnically distinct enough to form it's own state, but even that concept - that ethnic nations should form their own states - isn't some kind of moral absolute, and it's often quite dangerous.

Israel did it, Pakistan/India did it, East Timor did it, but at what cost? The Basque don't get their own state, nor do the Muslims in the Philippines, nor the Maori in NZ. If the US could snap their fingers and give the Kurds their own state, we wouldn't. Turkey won't give the Kurds autonomy. No one is calling for China to give the Muslim Uighurs their own state.

What's the criteria? That ethnic groups:
1) be big enough in population and economy to be independent
2) be ethnically homogeneous(?)
3) be oppressed, not given human rights, speech, political representation

Tibet fits those criteria - but it's arguable that Tibetans aren't treated much worse than Han Chinese (since 1950s). I'm suspicious that some political groups use the Tibet situation to beat up on China, according to their own agendas.

China is an empire. Tibet is a police state. Xinjiang is a police state. Minority cultures throughout the nation are seen as threats to the nation and generally oppressed. Taiwan, parts of Russia, Mongolia, India and Tajikistan are disputed territory. As near as I can tell the reference point for China's self image is the height of the Qing dynasty.

Their press and their internet is nothing like ours.

I'm suspicious that some political groups use the Tibet situation to beat up on China, according to their own agendas.

Without a doubt. But the oppression and slaughter are real, nonetheless. Likewise the Uighur minority in Xinjiang, who get less publicity because a)they're Moslems and b) they don't have a charismatic symbol like the Dalai Lama.

And B is right. Bad as our press sucks lately it's nothing compared to China.

James Madison was sure wrong when he envisioned the press as a check on an out-of-control government. That sure ain't happening here or in China!

OFF TOPIC:

Everyone needs to read "Kettner's Book Of the Table." It's basically an 1850s version of "The Devil's Dictionary," only about food.

"Restaurant" was originally the name of a soup. "Ketchup" was invented by the Japanese. And "Jam" fills him with a rage.

It takes a day and one-half for a train to get from Xian to Lhasa. Why do you think a grace period of a similar duration of time was offered "yesterday" (the time, here inside China, right now, is Sunday, 9:14 pm)?

And yet they are able to get that info in Cuba and our Shit-for brains president is going to China.

KINDA LIKE HERE with the "news" from Iraq...oh, but that's because all is going so very well over there, I forgot!

Saying "China's press is a lot like our own" in the context of self-censorship is not the same as saying "our press is as bad as China's" or "there's no difference between our press and China's".

Some people need to read more carefully or brush up on their comprehension skills. Or perhaps both.

A chinese journalist saying they are happy to self censor might have a few more things on his mind than you think. As far as Tibet goes, they can't go there and they can't report anything they're not told to report. The penalties are a little bit stiffer than bad ratings or a changed time slot.

On the media access front, Youtube is toast in China for the moment because of Tibet. As Fallows notes, any website that looks at the issue in depth is also toast.

Some of the reports claim (and some videos and photos support this) that monks have instigated violence in Tibet. Irony of ironies, if this is true, no one will believe it because China won't allow the world -- and the Chinese people -- to honestly assess the situation.

@luci: Tibet is majority-Han Chinese now, so the place isn't ethnically homogeneous anymore.

B - the Chinese journalists didn't say they are "happy" to self-censor. If you would read the article I referred to, you'd see that. They know that what they write will have to pass muster with the censors, and so they censor themselves. And they are generally in agreement on the need for censorship.

As is our own press. See NYT & illegal wiretapping.

"Tibet is majority-Han Chinese now"

Official statistics are probably biased against admissions of a mass population transfer policy, but I think that is only now true for the urban areas. Han Chinese have been moved in to work in new factories and developments -- generally with large economic incentives. The population transfers, economic disparity, and growing two class system are chief complaints of the Tibetans. From the videos that I've seen it's clear that protests are targeting Han Chinese property (and police).

The generally expected response would be mass arrests, imprisonment, and executions. We'll see how the olympics changes that.

Again with the reading comprehension issues.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that the Olympics will change anything about the expected reponse to the trouble in Tibet.

WTF shithead,

I haven't seen anyone suggest that the Olympics will change anything about the expected reponse to the trouble in Tibet.

Try reading a news article. Any news article.

Are you just being contrarian for the hell of it. Distinguising between "happy to self-censor" and "in agreement with the need for self-censorship". And I have no clue what you are extrapolating from the public response of the editorial staff of a state owned newspaper in China. And comparing Tibet to Iraq? Iraq is not a US state or territory and journalists can go practically anywhere they want in Iraq unattended (with the exception of US bases). They aren't even guaranteed to be arrested at checkpoints.

Shithead?

Well, that's charming.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that you've failed throughout to dispute that the US press does in fact willingly self-censor.

Which was the only point, despite all of the other stuff you've attempted to drag into the mix.

Again, reading comprehension.

My only point with respect to this is that "self-censorship" under the penalty of jail, beatings, and collective punishment of your family and friends has absolutely nothing to do with self-censorship of the media in the US. I believe I've made this point repeatedly and if you don't get it I can't help you.

If you did a little reading of past threads you'd see shithead has a context -- although I'm not sure what it's current market value is, I'm certain it's still great buy with respect to back-and-forths like this.

No, here in the US, the press doesn't self-censor under penalty of jail, beatings, etc. They do it to preserve "access" so they can get the lies directly from the horse's mouth. Which is far more craven than Chinese journalists simply accepting the status quo willingly and self-censoring.

But in the end, it's all still self-censorship and failure to inform the public of what's really going on.

LOL, I'll self-censor my shithead comments.

I do think it's important to make distinctions between self-censorship, censorship, and the complete exclusion of journalists from significant public events. What we are talking about in China is the latter two. There is significant pressure from authorities and there is no choice. It really is irelevent that they're not willing to test the limits. It's censorship.

The same might be true for some US government actions. Wire tapping is a good example of moderate pressure applied to journalists. The military action in Fallujah might be an example of complete exclusion of journalists. I certainly don't want us to slide down that path further.

jennifer says:
We don't see what's going in Iraq just as the Chinese don't see what's going on in Tibet. And it's because our press has decided to spare us from seeing it.

I disagree. China Daily is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, so people who work it may already be 1) partial to its viewpoint (it's akin to working as a WH Press spokesman), and 2) could be afraid to express their opinion freely - you do know they throw journalists in prison in China, right? Therefore, I question the validity of what those Chinese reporters say. No one doubts the occasional need for self-censorship, but at a fundamental level, journalists, whether they're in China or the USA must believe in reporting facts - why on Earth would they go into the profession in the first place?

Chinese reporters who want to tell the truth

It is now 7:53 am, on Monday, March 17th, inside China. Yahoo.com has ceased to exist on the internet - as well as YouTube (which bit the dust over the weekend). The New York Times is still available on the internet.

the US press does in fact willingly self-censor

Absolutely -- but there is one key difference. Those US journalists who choose not to self-censor get to continue living.

For now, at least.

I was in China last week, and having just read Fallows' article the Atlantic, put it to the test. You can't access Atrios, Kos, Washington Monthly, Juan Cole, or most US state government sites from China. Drudge and Free Republic? no problem accessing them.

You can't access Atrios, Kos, Washington Monthly, Juan Cole, or most US state government sites from China.

Next trip to China you get a cavity search.

It is now 10:20 pm, March 17th, here inside China. They have now shut down all internet access to the Los Angeles Times as well as the Washington Post. (Access to all US Government websites - including those that any US citizen could use to register their physical location while living inside China have been blocked/automatically shut down for years, by the way.)

News on what is happening in Tibet is being reported hourly by the Chinese press - to the entire nation - on tv as well as on the internet...just not all of it. Witness this current news link from the front page of China's largest internet portal ("Sohu.com"): http://news.sohu.com/20080317/n255758980.shtml